Opponents of Polyamory -- Present Your Arguments

[Curious George]

I understand quite well. All I'm trying to do is erase misconceptions, stereotypes and false facts.

Me too.

 

[kashmir]

And you have been incredibly vocal in every polyamory thread so far...that speaks more of you than me. I already know I'm polyamorous...what are you?

Why do you keep trying to turn everything around?
I have no desire to gain approval on a debate forum for my sexual lifestyle and/or demand arguments from those who oppose my views.

I understand quite well. All I'm trying to do is erase misconceptions, stereotypes and false facts.

The world is full of people, you cant present your lifestyle as one that the rest follow.
That is one of my only debates about this.
How can you possibility prove a word you say is valid for everyone else who is actively in polygamous relationships?
"They all wear condoms, they are all 110% honest,have better communication, they are superhero's"


Some in all these threads are also suggesting that one on one is doomed to fail, has higher risks for everything and poly has it all figured out, in a broad sense of paraphrasing what is being said.

 

[illykitty]

Well, tbh, I don't totally understand all forms of polyamoury but I'm not against it. As long as no one makes me feel guilty about being mono, then all is fine. I don't see a reason to be against people loving each other. I'd like it if it more things became no big deal, nothing to talk about. Sometimes I feel like social norms are chocking.

I think I understand closed polyamoury better than open type relationships... I guess it's because I value fierce loyalty and commitment, rather than lose and fleeting relationships. I also prefer to feel some level of security and safety.

With my current relationship, poly is out of question. I don't even want to be with someone else anyway (tbh I haven't even found anyone else to be attracted to). We went through a lot and most people would have found it too hard, it was all worth it. I think it made our relationship really solid. I want us to be that couple that grows old together and still love each other after that many years.

But if I was single, and say, had two friends and we all fell in love then decided on a closed relationship with all three of us, then that makes sense to me. I don't have an issue understanding this sort of scenario.

Like I said, it's open ones that I have difficulty relating to. I also don't understand feeling attraction to many people. I can count on one hand the amount of people I feel attracted to and on one finger the amount I felt romantic love for.

 

[Riverwolf]

Telling everyone they have to accept what lifestyle everyone else does is not dictatorship?
The other thread about having gender-less restrooms only is valid proof of what I am talking about.
"We dont mind, so you have to not mind too or your a "prude" w/e"

Please read the rest of my post more carefully. And please read my response to the gender-less restroom thing.

Who cares what ever lifestyle some view as normal to them, such as having multiple partners.
The rest of the world does not have to accept it as normal.

No, they don't. But we would certainly prefer it.

I don't see why this is a one sided argument.
Look around the world, there are tons and tons of things deemed normal to them and not us.

Again, who gets to decide what is normal for everyone else?

That everyone else.

And what is so wrong with family values?
This is where it gets absurd.

Nothing wrong with family values. I see no reason why polyamorous relationships invalidate them.

I don't have kids, but I am pretty sure my family values wouldn't include multiple sex partners.

Multiple relationships. Polyamory isn't necessarily polygamy.

Am I a prude, wrong, bias?
Who cares, they are my kids.
multiple partners=more risks

Only if no care is taken.

If one values themselves/others as a sex object, something is wrong.

No arguments from me.

Also, if one can not have a friendship with another, without involving sex, something is wrong.

Absolutely.

Polyamory is about more than friendship.

When people have to fill in gaps, with people outside the marriage, something is wrong.
Seen too many docs about this stuff, and it makes perfect sense.

Yes it does. Thing is, you're not describing polyamory.

I am allowed to have my world view, just as everyone else.

Yes you are.

Telling me that my moral views are invalid, is dictatorship.

Debating is not a dictatorship.

However, telling us that we HAVE to live a certain lifestyle IS a dictatorship.

In other words, it's the side you're defending that's involved in cultural dictatorship, not ours.

 

[Riverwolf]

Why do you keep trying to turn everything around?
I have no desire to gain approval on a debate forum for my sexual lifestyle and/or demand arguments from those who oppose my views.



The world is full of people, you cant present your lifestyle as one that the rest follow.
That is one of my only debates about this.
How can you possibility prove a word you say is valid for everyone else who is actively in polygamous relationships?
"They all wear condoms, they are all 110% honest,have better communication, they are superhero's"


Some in all these threads are also suggesting that one on one is doomed to fail, has higher risks for everything and poly has it all figured out, in a broad sense of paraphrasing what is being said.

No... that's not going on at all.

Are you under some kind of impression that we're trying to force you to become polyamorous?

'Cause I know I'm in favor of polyamory, but I can't see myself doing it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Maybe the argument needs further clarification.

Is the OP asking for opposition on a personal level or a societal level? I'm seeing a range of opinions offered by those who aren't in favor of polyamory from people who are simply mono and are just living their lives, and people who are not in favor of polyamory for society overall.

If the responses are variations of Your Mileage May Vary, and poly folk are responding back with standing for their position, maybe it's being misinterpreted as "Hey, we're happy like this, and you would be too if you joined us."

I state for the record that I honor mono folk as I do heterosexuals. I back off if I get vibes that what I do and what I want isn't for them. I don't want others doing the same to me, so I do likewise.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

In other words, it's the side you're defending that's involved in cultural dictatorship, not ours.

Gee whiz! Here I was believing that he was merely defending his own point of view and not an insidious cultural dictatorship. Oh silly me.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No... that's not going on at all.

It's not? Well some polys on here have been preaching that poly's are more ethical and communicative than the rest of us. They have been preaching that they are superior to the rest of us in like 5 threads now.

 

[Alceste]

It's not? Well some polys on here have been preaching that poly's are more ethical and communicative than the rest of us. They have been preaching that they are superior to the rest of us in like 5 threads now.

No, actually, you're the only one who has been repeatedly posting that poly people are superior.

If you believe otherwise, I think poor reading comprehension is the issue, not anything we've been posting about our poly relationships and why we love them.

With regards to the issue if communication, here's some food for thought.

Communication is one of the most distinguishing features of polyamorous relationships: Poly people rely on communication to negotiate relationship boundaries and safer sex agreements, express their feelings, and get to know each other. Essential to the care and feeding of nearly every poly romance, communication is the primary vehicle polys use to establish emotional intimacy. While poly folks often enjoy sexuality, and sexual intimacy can certainly contribute to emotional intimacy, very few polyamorous (or monogamous) relationships can thrive without consistent and intentional communication.

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/t...ional-intimacy-in-polyamorous-relationships-1

Please note that generally being better at communicating doesn't equate to being better, period.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No, actually, you're the only one who has been repeatedly posting that poly people are superior.

If you believe otherwise, I think poor reading comprehension is the issue, not anything we've been posting about our poly relationships and why we love them.

I think reading comprehension is fine, thank you. And far better than your comprehension of morality and common decency.

If you want to get insulting then I say let us go at it. Do you really want this because it ain't going to be pretty?

 

[Alceste]

I think reading comprehension is fine, thank you. And far better than your comprehension of morality and common decency.

If you want to get insulting then I say let us go at it. Do you really want this because it ain't going to be pretty?

None of your posts are pretty. You come into practically every thread and insult and sneer at everyone who disagrees with you. Then whenever somebody calls you on it, you insist that you're not being insulting at all - you're just sharing various outrageous, bigoted opinions with utmost sincerity.

So, given that talking to you is ALWAYS going to be the exact opposite of pretty, no matter what the topic, your threat that you can become even uglier is not at all intimidating to me. In fact, I'm curious to see how much more outrageous and offensive your posts can get than they already are.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I agree with you.

I think the obstacles here are that we're still suffering from the cultural baggage of thinking of our partners as "ours", or that our partner has some sort of ownership of us. We don't specifically outright say that we have ownership save for the emotional attachments to the phrases "I'm his" or "He's mine." But we do attribute a sense of property, in a way, in our relationships and think that if we don't do that or think that, we don't care enough about our partners.

My husband and I once went to a Greek Orthodox wedding, where the vows specifically stated that the wife's body belonged to the husband, and the husband's body belonged to the wife. Hubbie and I glanced at each other and quietly mimicked the gag reflex at the same time. Owning each other? Or even a part of each other? Thankfully we both agree that perspective does not belong in our relationship and that we'd rather stick our hands in a blender than feel as if we owned each other in any meaningful way.

But relationships are funny, and I think are highly influenced by cultural indoctrination of what marriage and fidelity are supposed to look like. Love, and commitment, and fidelity, and property are all intimately woven together to create a picture that people imagine quite a bit.

I dunno. As has been said before, YMMV.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in a monogamous marriage and prefer that. I don't see myself enjoying or thriving in a polyamorous type situation. I don't think I lack caring about my partner, I think I'm being realistic about my emotional abilities and the fact that I don't want to spend my life wrestling with jealousy. Since my spouse feels similarly it works out well for our mutual values and goals.

I don't think one way is morally superior to the other, that one way implies you care about your partner more than another way etc. I honestly think some people may just be built differently and that doesn't bother me.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Don't get me wrong, I'm in a monogamous marriage and prefer that. I don't see myself enjoying or thriving in a polyamorous type situation. I don't think I lack caring about my partner, I think I'm being realistic about my emotional abilities and the fact that I don't want to spend my life wrestling with jealousy. Since my spouse feels similarly it works out well for our mutual values and goals.

I don't think one way is morally superior to the other, that one way implies you care about your partner more than another way etc. I honestly think some people may just be built differently and that doesn't bother me.

Totally cool with that. :yes:

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Lol, no, love, you didn't hurt my feelings. I think you're funny. I have kind of a dark sense of humour.

You know if you don't like the things I say, you don't have to respond to them. I mean just because you think I have posted something outrageous and mean-spirited in every other thread does not mean they are worthy of your rebuttal and outrage.

You can simply just ignore them or put me on ignore. Problem solved.

 

[Leftimies]

I think its a messy debacle.

Human being is an envious being, from the very start. We all yearn for that someone who accepts us as we are, undivided bond to another soul. Someone to belong to, and someone to belong to us. The bond of two is an uninterrupted relation of perfect interdependence. It corresponds to universal law, and beyond all, it is infinitely beautiful: there is only one of her and only one of him. And by the virtue of being together, just the two of them, both transcend the confines of their gender: she completes him with her femininity, he completes her with his masculinity. He needs her and she needs him, and together they may find happiness.

This is how I view it anyway. It is beautiful in my eyes, while polyamory doesn't add anything to the table and, rather, actually takes away from the uniqueness of duality that is relationship between two people.

 

[Drolefille]

You know if you don't like the things I say, you don't have to respond to them. I mean just because you think I have posted something outrageous and mean-spirited in every other thread does not mean they are worthy of your rebuttal and outrage.

You can simply just ignore them or put me on ignore. Problem solved.

Your definition of outrage has a very low bar of you think that was Alceste's outrage. But then I'm suspecting you have me on ignore since I pointed out your privilege and you appear unable to be unable to name me when quoting my posts from another thread.

So happy to have outraged you.

However I agree, please attempt to be uglier if that's what you want. It really can't be worse.

 

[Drolefille]

I think its a messy debacle.

Human being is an envious being, from the very start. We all yearn for that someone who accepts us as we are, undivided bond to another soul. Someone to belong to, and someone to belong to us. The bond of two is an uninterrupted relation of perfect interdependence. It corresponds to universal law, and beyond all, it is infinitely beautiful: there is only one of her and only one of him. And by the virtue of being together, just the two of them, both transcend the confines of their gender: she completes him with her femininity, he completes her with his masculinity. He needs her and she needs him, and together they may find happiness.

This is how I view it anyway. It is beautiful in my eyes, while polyamory doesn't add anything to the table and, rather, actually takes away from the uniqueness of duality that is relationship between two people.

How do non-hetero couples fit into your paradigm?

Could you see the balance and beauty in a relationship of three? A triskelion?

 

[kashmir]

why would anyone be happy if they caused others to put them on ignore?
The victim card is completely out of hand, once again.

Just letting others know that I am done here.
If you want our opinions, ok, but if you want to argue and cant accept what we have to say, stop creating threads about it, to lure in discussion from both sides of the table.
Its that simple.

 

[Leftimies]

How do non-hetero couples fit into your paradigm?

Could you see the balance and beauty in a relationship of three? A triskelion?

I am willing to accept LGBT community into the framework as long as no cheating takes place. Naturally same applies to heterosexual couples as well. I will say that my preference is on heterosexual relationships, where I perceive to be the purest dynamic. Then again, its what I perceive.

Then again, seeing all the dysfunctional couples waste each other sometimes makes me question. But, in the end, its not the framework that is flawed - just the people.

About more people than two, no. I follow the philosophy of "less is more". I do not see it feasible, that a couple of more than two could keep it together for more than 20 years, seeing how difficult it is for monogamous couples.

Trust, loyalty, mutual admiration and intimacy are basis for successful love. All of them are compromised at the advent of more people entering.

 

[Curious George]

Your definition of outrage has a very low bar of you think that was Alceste's outrage. But then I'm suspecting you have me on ignore since I pointed out your privilege and you appear unable to be unable to name me when quoting my posts from another thread.

So happy to have outraged you.

However I agree, please attempt to be uglier if that's what you want. It really can't be worse.

I really think that there should be a section wherein one could see who has them on ignore, but this would probably cause more trouble than it's worth.